sps rathore-ruchika trial court judgement

8/9/2019 SPS Rathore-Ruchika Trial Court Judgement

1/97

CBI Vs SPS Rathore

1

IN THE COURT OF JASBIR SINGH SIDHU

CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE: CHANDIGARH.

Challan No : 3/17-11-2000, 12T/19-4-2006RBT191/17-11-2009

Date of Decision : 21-12-2009Computer I.D. No:36014R0025452000

State (CBI)

Vs.

S. P.S. Rathore, IPS, Director General of Police, Haryana, Resident of House No.469, Sector 6, Panchkula.

FIR No. RC. SI 1 2000 S 0001 dated 3-1-2000U/S 354/509 of IPC

PS : Panchkula, Haryana.

Present: Sh. C. S. Sharma, PP, assisted by Sh. R. B. Sharma, PP for the CBI.Ms. Anju Sharma, Counsel for the complainant.Accused on bail with counsel Ms. Abha Rathore.

JUDGMENT

1. The above named accused has been sent up by the Dy. Inspector

General of Police, CBI/New Delhi, to face trial for commission of offences

punishable under Sections 354, 509 of IPC.

2. In brief, the case of prosecution is that in pursuance of the order dated 21-

8-1999 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at

Chandigarh in Crl. Writ Petition No. 1694/97 filed by Smt. Madhu Prakash

wife ofSh. Anand Prakash, R/O House No. 210, Sector 6, Panchkula and

upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide its order dated 14-12-


2/97

CBI Vs SPS Rathore

2

1999, FIR No. 516 dated 29-12-1999 u/s 354/509 of IPC was registered at

police station, Panchkula, Haryana. The FIR was registered on the basis of

a memorandum dated 16-8-1990 submitted by Ms. Ruchika, daughter of

Sh. S. C. Girhotra, R/O House No. 363, Sector 6, Panchkula and others,

addressed to the Financial Commissioner and Secretary, Home

Department, Government of Haryana. It was alleged that on 12-8-1990 at

about 12:00 noon, Sh. SPS Rathore, President, Haryana Lawn Tennis

Association molested Ms. Ruchika in the office of the lawn tennis and after

securing her presence on the pretext of discussions on arrangements for

extra facilities to promote Ruchika's promising career in law tennis. It was

revealed in the investigation that during the year 1989-91, accused SPS

Rathore was on deputation to Bhakhra Beas Management Board(BBMB)

as Director (Vigilance and Security). During the year 1988-89, Sh. SPS

Rathore formed the Haryana Lawn Tennis Association (HLTA) and got the

same registered with the Registrar of Firms and Societies, Haryana on 29-

11-1988 vide Registration No. 903 of 1988-89 with its address as 469,

Sector 6, Panchkula. The office of the association was established in the

garage of House No.469, Sector 6, Panchkula, an under construction

building owned by SH. SPS Rathore. S/Shri T. /Thomas, Kuldeep Singh

and Paltoo Mehto were engaged as the lawn tennis Coach, Manager and

Ball Picker respectively in the said association. The garage of the under

construction building was divided into three portions and the front portion

of the same was being used as the office of the HLTA. Sh. T. Thomas,

Coach and Sh. Kuldeep Singh, Manager were using the other two portions

for residential purpose. All the three portions were interconnected with


3/97

CBI Vs SPS Rathore

3

doors. HLTA had enrolled 60-70 member players comprising young boys

and girls who were mostly residents of sector 6 and officers colony,

Panchkula and they were being imparted training in tennis courts by Sh. T.

Thomas, Coach. The member players were enrolled on payment of

monthly subscriptions. Ms. Ruchika, aged about 15 years, Daughter of Sh.

S.C. Girhotra r/o house no. 363, Sector 6, Panchkula and a student of

Sacred Heart School, Sector 26, Chandigarh and Ms. Aradhana @ Reemu

aged 15 years Daughter of Sh. Anand Parkash, R/O House No.210, Sector

6, Panchkula also got themselves enrolled as members of the association

by paying the requisite fee and joined coaching in lawn tennis. Ms Ruchika

and Ms. Reemu were friends and both usually went together for practice.

The other members who played lawn tennis included Munish Arora, Vipul

Channa and Pushpinder etc. Accused SPS Rathore used to visit the lawn

tennis court in the evening. Ms. Ruchika was to go to Canada for a few

months as decided by her father and she had informed about the same to

the accused. On 11-8-1990 at about 12:00 noon accused SPS Rathore

visited the house of Sh. S.C. Girhotra and told him that he should not send

Ms. Ruchika abroad as she was a very promising player and that accused

would arrange special coaching for her. Accused SPS Rathore also asked

Sh. S.C. Girhotra to send Ms. Ruchika to his office on 12-8-1990 at 12:00

noon in connection with the same. Sh. S.C. Girhotra had agreed to the

same. On 11-8-1990 Sh. S.C. Girhotra informed his daughter Ms. Ruchika

about the visit of accused and also the desire of accused to meet her at

12:00 noon on 12-8-1990 for making arrangements of special coaching for

her. Sh. S.C. Girhotra specifically instructed Ms. Ruchika to meet Sh.


4/97

CBI Vs SPS Rathore

4

Rathore on 12-8-1990 at 12:00 noon on his office. On 12-8-1990 Ms.

Ruchika visited the house of Ms. Aradhana @ Reemu and told her

excitedly about the visit of the accused to her house on the previous day i.e.

11-8-1990. She also disclosed that Sh. Rathore had advised her father not

to send her to Canada and had promised that as she was a promising

player, the accused would arrange extra coaching for her. Ms. Aradhana @

Reemu was further told that Sh. Rathore had called Ms. Ruchika to his

office on 12-8-1990 at 12:00 noon. Thereafter both Ms. Aradhana and Ms.

Ruchika went to play at the lawn tennis court and while both were playing,

Mr. Paltoo, ball picker came over and told Ms. Ruchika that Sh. Rathore

had called her to his office at 12:00 noon. Accordingly, Ms. Ruchika

accompanied by Ms. Aradhana @ Reemu went to meet Mr. Rathore in his

office and found him standing outside the office. On seeing both of them,

Sh. Rathore entered his office and asked both of them to follow. Ms.

Ruchika requested Sh. Rathore to talk to her outside the office, but Sh.

Rathore insisted on their coming inside the office. On his insistence, both

the girls went inside the office. Then, Sh. Rathore got fetched one chair

which was occupied by Ms. Aradhana @ Reemu. Sh. Rathore himself sat in

his chair, which was on the other side of a table. Ms. Ruchika kept standing

on the right side of Ms. Aradhana @ Reemu. Thereafter, accused SPS

Rathore asked Ms. Aradhana @ Reemu to go out and fetch Mr. T. Thomas,

coach. Ms. Aradhana accordingly left leaving Sh. Rathore and Ms. Ruchika

in the office. Ms. Aradhana went towards the rear of the house where she

found Mr. T. Thomas standing on the southern side of the house across the

road. Between her and the coach, she also found the same person standing


5/97

CBI Vs SPS Rathore

5

who had brought the chair in the office for her. Ms. Aradhana asked this

person to go to Mr. Thomas and tell him to come to the office of Sh.

Rathore. Accordingly, the said person went to Mr. Thomas and told him

whatever was conveyed to him by Ms. Aradhana @ Reemu. However, Mr.

Thomas waived his hand indicating that he would not come. Immediately

thereon, Ms. Reemu returned to the office. On entering the office Ms.

Aradhana @ Reemu found that the accused was holding one hand of Ms.

Ruchika while his other hand was around her waist and Ms. Ruchika was

trying to get herself released by pushing the accused with her other hand

which was not held by the accused. On seeing Ms. Reemu, the accused got

nervous, released Ms. Ruchika and fell back in his chair. Ms. Aradhana @

Reemu told the accused that Mr. T. Thomas, coach had refused to come,

whereupon the accused again ordered Ms. Reemu to go and bring the

coach personally. In the meantime, Ms. Ruchika started leaving the room,

but the accused asked her to stay and again told Ms. Reemu to go and fetch

the coach. However, Ms. Ruchika reached near Ms. Reemu and then ran

out of the office. The accused then told Ms. Reemu to ask Ms. Ruchika to

cool down and he will do whatever she says. Thereafter, Ms. Reemu also

ran out of the office of the accused and tried to catch up with Ms. Ruchika

who was then running towards her house and was also weeping. With

some effort, Ms. Reemu could catch up with Ms. Ruchika. On seeing Ms.

Reemu, Ms. Ruchika who was already weeping, started crying loudly.

According to Ms. Reemu, Ms. Ruchika informed her that as soon as the

former had left to fetch the coach, the accused had caught hold of Ms.

Ruchika's hand which was got released by her with lot of difficulty. But the


6/97

CBI Vs SPS Rathore

6

accused then got up from his chair and caught Ms. Ruchika's hand again

and with his other hand, had also encircled Ms. Ruchika's waist, dragged

her towards himself and had embraced her. Ms. Ruchika also informed

Ms. Reemu that she had struggled to push the accused away with her other

hand which was not held by the accused. Thereafter, Ms. Aradhana

consoled Ms. Ruchika upon which she stopped weeping and enquired if it

would be proper to inform her father and the parents of Ms. Reemu about

this incident. After discussions, however, both decided not to inform their

parents as they apprehended that Sh. Rathore being an IG police could

involve and harass the girls and their parents. Both the girls thereafter,

went to the house of Ms. Aradhana @ Reemu from where Ms. Ruchika left

for her house. On 13-8-1990, as it was holiday at the lawn tennis court,

neither Ms. Reemu nor Ms. Ruchika went to play tennis.

3. On 14-8-1990, at about 4:30 p.m., Ms. Reemu alongwith Ms. Ruchika went

to the lawn tennis courts. They also wanted to avoid Sh. Rathore who used

to usually visit the lawn tennis court in the evening. At about 6:30 pm on

14-8-1990 while Ms. Reemu and Ms. Ruchika were about to return after

practice, Mr. Paltoo, ball picker came over to the lawn tennis court and

told Ms. Ruchika that the accused had called her to his office immediately.

However, Ms. Ruchika refused to go and pointed out to Ms.Reemu that

since they had not informed their parents about the misbehaviour

committed by Sh. Rathore on 12-8-1990, the accused was feeling

emboldened and had again called Ms. Ruchika to his office with a view to

molest her. Thereupon, both Ms. Reemu and Ms. Ruchika decided that it

would be proper to inform the father of Ms. Ruchika and the parents of


7/97

CBI Vs SPS Rathore

7

Ms. Reemu about the said incident of molestation at the hands of Sh.

Rathore. Accordingly, Ms. Ruchika accompanied by Ms. Reemu went to

Ms. Ruchika's house and met Sh. S.C. Girhotra. They started narrating the

incident of molestation on 12-8-1990. However, Ms. Ruchika could not

narrate the incident further and broke down whereupon Sh. S.C. Girhotra

told Ms. Reemu to take Ms. Ruchika to Ms. Reemu's mother promising

that he would also reach there. Thereafter, Ms. Reemu took Ms. Ruchika to

her house. On seeing Mrs. Madhu Prakash, Ms. Ruchika started crying.

After being consoled by Mrs. Madhu Prakash, Ms. Ruchika cooled down

and narrated the entire incident of her molestation at the hands of the

accused. Mrs.Madhu Prakash also called her husband Sh Anand Prakash

who was present in the house and both the girls narrated the incident to

him as well. On being asked by Sh. Anand Prakash about the whereabouts

of the accused, both the girls informed that the accused might be available

at the lawn tennis courts. On 14-8-1990 itself Sh. Anand Prakash, Smt.

Madhu Prakash accompanied by Ms. Ruchika and Ms. Reemu proceeded

to the lawn tennis court and on way Sh. S.C.Girhotra and some of his

neighbours including Mrs. Veenu Mittal, Mrs. Sangeet Virk also joined

them. On reaching the lawn tennis courts, they found S/Sh. Manish Arora,

Vipul Chanana, Pushpinder and other players playing tennis. The

enquiries made from them about the whereabouts of Sh.Rathore revealed

that the accused had already left for the office of the association. The said

persons thereafter proceeded to the office of the accused where Chowkidar

Pyare Lal informed them that the accused had already left for Chandigarh.

4. On 15-8-1990, 10-15 other persons who were mostly the parents of boy/girl


8/97

CBI Vs SPS Rathore

8

players and member of the HLTA collected at the residence of Sh. Anand

Prakash, the then resident of House No. 407, Sector 6, Panchkula and

decided that some strong action should be taken by way of taking up the

matter with the higher authorities of the Haryana Government. It was

decided that a deputation of citizens including the players would meet the

Chief Minister and Home Minister with a request to order an enquiry into

the incident. Accordingly, a petition / memorandum was prepared in

Hindi addressed to the Chief Minister, Home Minister, Governor,

Financial Commissioner-cum-Secretary (Home), Government of Haryana,

SDM Panchkula and SHO Panchkula. On 16-8-1990, the parents of Ms.

Ruchika and Ms. Reemu took Ms. Ruchika and Ms. Reemu with other

residents of Panchkula to Civil Secretariat to see the Chief Minister and

Home Minister, but they could not contact any of the two. Accordingly,

they met Sh. J. K. Duggal, Home Secretary, Haryana and submitted a

memorandum asking for an enquiry into the molestation of Ms. Ruchika.

Sh. J. K. Duggal, in addition to bringing the matter to the notice of the

Principal Secretary to the CM, the Chief Secretary and the Home Minister,

discussed the matter with the Home Minister on 17-8-1990. It was then

decided to send the memorandum to the then DGP, Haryana asking him to

enquire into the matter and submit enquiry report within one week. An

office note was accordingly marked to the Home Minister for passing the

aforesaid orders. After the approval of the note by the Home Minister, the

same was forwarded to Sh. R.R. Singh, the then DGP, Haryana vide No.

18/34/90-2HGI dated 20-8-1990.

5. It was further found during the investigation that on 16-8-1990 Sh. J.K.


9/97

CBI Vs SPS Rathore

9

Duggal had assured the parents of Ms. Ruchika and Ms. Reemu and others

that he would also depute Sh. S. K. Joshi, SDM to reach the lawn tennis

court at 5:00 p.m. on that day to hear the grievances of the parents and the

member players. On 16-8-1990 at about 5:00 p.m. Sh. Anand Prakash

alongwith Smt. Madhu Prakash and others went to the lawn tennis court

where other parents alongwith their wards were also present. These

persons however found a notice dated 15-8-90 declaring suspension of Ms.

Ruchika w.e.f.13-8-1990 displayed there. This agitated the persons/players

present there as Ms. Ruchika had been suspended without any fault on her

part and they started raising slogans against Sh. SPS Rathore. Sh. Anil

Dhawan, SHO, PS Panchkula who was on patrolling duty in the area

received information around 5:30 p.m. that some boys and girls were

raising slogans at the tennis court of sector 6, Panchkula. On reaching

there he found the member players including boys and girls shouting

slogans against Sh. SPS Rathore, President HLTA. Sh. Kuldeep Singh,

Manager, T. Thomas, Coach and Paltoo were also present there. Sh. S. K.

Joshi, SDM also reached the lawn tennis court and declared that the tennis

court had no connection with HLTA and that he had taken over the same

under orders of the Home Secretary. Sh. S. K. Joshi also made enquiries

from Sh. Kuldeep Singh, Manager and Sh. T. Thomas, coach about the

indiscipline on the part of Ms. Ruchika whereupon both wrote on the

suspension order itself that they were not aware of any act of indiscipline

on the part of Ms. Ruchika. Sh. Joshi also declared that the lawn tennis

court will be open to everybody and that no fee will be charged from any

person for playing over there. It was also revealed in the enquiry that no


10/97

CBI Vs SPS Rathore

10

act of indiscipline was officially recorded and enquired into against Ms.

Ruchika.

6. On 21-8-1990 Sh. R.R. Singh who was the then DGP, Haryana received the

order dated 17-8-1990 for making an enquiry into the matter. Sh. R.R.

Singh conducted the enquiry into the incident of molestation of Ms.

Ruchika and recorded the statements of Ms. Ruchika, Ms. Reemu, Sh. S.C.

Girhotra, Smt. Madhu Anand, Sh. Anand Prakash and Sh. Anil Dhawan,

SHO, PS Panchkula. After conducting the enquiry into the incident Sh.

R.R. Singh concluded that whatever Ms. Ruchika had stated about her

molestation by Sh. SPS Rathore was based on true facts and that he was of

the considered opinion that a cognizable offence was made out. Sh. R.R.

Singh, therefore, had recommended registration of case under appropriate

sections of Indian Penal Code and had forwarded his enquiry report dated

3-9-1990 to the Home Secretary, Government of Haryana. After the

incident of molestation Ms. Ruchika remained confined to her house and

remained depressed. Later Ms. Ruchika committed suicide by consuming

poison on 28-12-1993 and died on 29-12-1993. In the investigation

conducted by the CBI it was established Sh. SPS Rathore, IPS, while

working as President of Haryana Lawn Tennis Association, Panchkula,

Haryana molested Ms. Ruchika on 12-8-1990 knowing that his act was

likely to outrage the modesty of Ms. Ruchika and thus committed the

offence punishable u/s 354 IPC, therefore, he be summoned and tried

according to law.

7. Challan was presented in the court of the Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI,

Ambala on 17-11-2000. An application for condonation of delay was also


11/97

CBI Vs SPS Rathore

11

filed alongwith the challan. The court was of the view that the accused

should also be heard before deciding the application, therefore, notice of

the same was given to the accused vide order dated 18-11-2000. The delay

was condoned by the court and application u/s 473 of Cr. P.C. was allowed

vide detailed order dated 5-12-2000. Thereafter, accused was ordered to be

summoned for the offence u/s 354 of IPC vide another order of the same

date. The accused appeared in response of notice on 10-1-2001 and he was

bailed out in this case. An application for addition of offence u/s 306 of

IPC alongwith offence u/s 354 and 509 of IPC was moved by the applicant

Smt. Madhu Prakash on 8-10-2001. This application was allowed by the

court vide order dated 23-10-2001 and the court started the proceedings

for commitment of the case, but a Criminal Revision No.44697-M of 2001

was filed by the accused/respondent in the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab

and Haryana. Vide order dated 12-2-2002 the revision of the accused was

accepted by the Hon'ble High Court. Thereafter, accused was served upon

notice of accusation u/s 354 of IPC on 17-3-2003 to which he pleaded not

guilty and claimed regular trial.

8. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined 16 witnesses in all. Sh.

Anand Prakash, husband of complainant was examined as PW-1. Smt.

Madhu Prakash, complainant of the case was examined as PW-2. PW-3

was Sh. Munish Arora who was member of HLTA. PW-4 was Sh. Vipul

Chanana, who was also a member of HLTA. PW-5 was Dr. Naresh Mittal.

PW-6 was Sh.R.R. Singh, Ex. DGP, Haryana who conducted the enquiry in

this case. PW-7 was Sh. S. K. Joshi, the then SDM Panchkula. He had

inspected the spot after the incident. PW-8 was Sh. Som Lal Kajal,


12/97

CBI Vs SPS Rathore

12

Assistant Engineer who has prepared the site plan of the place of incident.

PW-9 was Sh. Sunil Malik, Executive Engineer. PW-10 was Sh. Anil

Kumar, the then SHO, Panchkula. PW-11 was Sh. Ratan Singh who was

SHO Panchkula at the time when FIR was registered in view of order of

Hon'ble Supreme Court. PW-12 was Sh. J. K. Duggal who was posted as

Home Secretary, Haryana at the time of incident. PW-13 was Ms.

Aradhana @ Reemu who is eye witness of the incident. PW-14 was Sh. B.S.

Ojha who was posted as Financial Commissioner-cum-Secretary to

Government of Haryana at the time of incident. PW-15 was Sh. S.C.

Girhotra, father of the victim. PW-16 was Sh. Rajesh Ranjan, I.G. CBI was

the Investigation officer of the present case. Documents Ex P1 to Ex P10,

Ex PW6/1 to Ex PW6/2, Ex PW8/A, Ex PW10/A, Ex PW11/A to Ex PW

11/B, Ex PW13/A, Ex PW14/A, Ex PW15/A, Ex PW16/1 to Ex PW16/6 were

also tendered into evidence.

9. Statement of accused u/s 313 Cr. P.C. was recorded. In the statement u/s

313 Cr. P.C. entire incriminating evidence which has come out against the

accused during the evidence of prosecution was put to the accused. In the

statement the accused admitted certain facts that in the period of 1990 he

was President of HLTA and the garage of his house was used as office of

HLTA. T. Thomas, Kuldeep Singh and Paltoo were employed as Tennis

coach, Manager and Ball picker respectively. PW-3 Munish Arora, PW-4

Vipul Chanana, PW-13 Ms. Aradhana and Ms. Ruchika Girhotra were the

members of the association during the year of 1990. Another facts are

denied with explanation by the accused in his statement. He denied that

Ms. Ruchika and Ms. Aradhana were close door neighbourers. He stated


13/97

CBI Vs SPS Rathore

13

that they lived approximately 15 minutes walking distance from each other.

He denied that on 11-8-1990 he went to the house of Sh. S.C. Girhotra. He

denied the conversation between him and Sh. S.C. Girhotra. He specifically

denied that on 12-8-1990 he caught the Ruchika's one hand tightly and put

his another hand around her waist and embraced her with his chest and

that Ms. Ruchika was trying to get herself released by pushing him away.

He denied the presence of Ms. Aradhana @ Reemu at that time. He denied

all the evidence relating that incident. He denied all the other facts also

that he organised any procession which raised slogans against Ruchika and

Sh. S.C. Girhotra and in favour of accused. However, he admitted the

registration of case in view of order of Hon'ble Supreme Court. He alleged

that recording of statement of witnesses by the CBI during the

investigation was doubtful. He further alleged the investigation as unfair.

He alleged that the memorandum Ex P-1 is false and fabricated. The

witnesses of the prosecution are not credible. He concluded his statement

with the lines that it is a case of no evidence and prosecution has not been

able to prove any case against him and he preferred to lead defence

evidence.

10.In defence, the accused examined 18 witnesses in all. DW-1 was Sh. Ved

Parkash, who remained attached as gunman with the accused. DW-2 was

Sh. Ram Piara who was labourer and working at HLTA on the day of

incident. DW-3 was Sh. Surender Kumar. DW-4 was Sh. Chander Pal who

was manager of HLTA. DW-5 was Sh.Gobind Ram Sharma. DW-6 was

Sh.Shadi Lal Malik who was working as Assistant Reader with the accused

in the year of 1973. DW-7 was Sh. Jog Dhian, Sub Inspector who has


14/97

CBI Vs SPS Rathore

14

produced the summoned record. DW-8 was EHC Bhagwan Dass. He also

produced the summoned record. DW-9 was Sh. Karan Singh. DW-10 was

Sh. Devendra Prashad who was document expert. DW-11 was Sh.

Abhilaksh Likhi, P.S. To Raksha Rajya Utpadan Mantry, Ministry of

Defence. DW-12 was Dr. C.S. Rao. DW-13 was Sh. Bihari Lal. DW13/A was

Sh. S.S. Dahiya, retired Chief Engineer. DW-14 was Sh. Rajiv Purohit,

clerk, CRC, Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. DW-15 was Smt.

Neelam Kasni, IAS, Director Social Welfare, Haryana. DW-16 was Sh. Om

Prakash Kathuria, the then Secretary HLTA and DW-17 was Sh.

Madhulesh Kumar Shishodia. DWs Vipan Pubby, Radhey Shyam and

Record Keeper Ambala were given up and not examined in defence.

Documents Ex D-1 to Ex D-20, Ex DW5/A, Ex D-8, Ex D-9, Ex D-10, Ex

DW8/1, Ex DW11/A, Ex DW12/A, Ex DW14/1, and Ex DW16/1 were

tendered into evidence.

11. Ld. PP for the CBI and Ld. Defence counsel were heard.

12.Ld. PP for the CBI initiated the arguments on behalf of prosecution/CBI.

Ld. PP argued that CBI has charge-sheeted the accused for the commission

of offence punishable u/s 354 of IPC with the allegations that the accused

molested Ms. Ruchika on 12-8-1990 knowing that this act was likely to

outrage the modesty of Ms. Ruchika. Notice of accusation has been served

upon the accused by the court on 17-3-2003. In order to establish notice of

accusation against the accused, the prosecution has examined as many as

16 witnesses. Prosecution has successfully proved this case against the

accused from the oral as well as documentary evidence. The important and

material incidents took place in the present case on 11,12,14,15,16,17 and 18


15/97

CBI Vs SPS Rathore

15

August, 1990. The prosecution has well proved sequence of the incidents

by way of leading cogent evidence.

13.Ld. PP argued that it is not disputed that during 1990 Haryana Lawn

Tennis Association (in short HLTA) was functioning in Panchkula

(Haryana). The accused was the President of HLTA. Its office was

established in the garage of House No. 469, Sector 6, Panchkula which was

owned by the accused and the same was under construction. It is also

admitted fact that Ms. Aradhana @ Reemu (PW-13), Mr. Manish Arora

(PW-3), Mr. Vipul Chanana (PW-4) and Ms. Ruchika (Since deceased)

were the members of association and used to play tennis in the lawn tennis

court. It is the prosecution case that on 11-8-1990 the accused visited the

house of Sh. S.C. Girhotra (PW-15) and told him that he (accused) came to

know that he (S.C. Girhotra) was sending his daughter Ms. Ruchika to

Canada. He requested him (S.C. Girhotra) not to send her abroad as she

was very good player and he will arrange special coaching for her. This fact

has been well proved by Sh. S.C. Girhotra, PW-15 in his statement. He

deposed that on 11-8-1990 accused visited his house at about 12:00 noon

and proved that accused had asked him not to send her daughter to

Canada and that he will arrange special coaching for her. The accused

asked Sh. S.C. Girhotra to send her daughter on 12-8-1990 at about 12:00

noon in his office to discuss with her about training. At that time, Ms.

Ruchika was not present at her house. On her return, the witness informed

her about the visit of Sh. SPS Rathore (Accused) and asked her to meet

him on 12-8-1990 in his office at 12:00 noon. This fact finds corroboration

from the statement of Ms. Aradhana (PW-13). She deposed that on 12-8-


16/97

CBI Vs SPS Rathore

16

1990 at about 11:00 am Ms. Ruchika came to her house and she was

appearing very excited. She told her that on 11-8-1990 Sh. SPS Rathore

had visited her house and requested her father not to send her abroad and

that he would arrange extra coaching/special coaching for her as she was

promising player. She further informed Ms. Aradhana that Sh. Rathore

had asked her father to send her on 12-8-1990 at 12:00 noon at HLTA.

This fact figures in the memorandum Ex P-1 also which has been signed by

Ms. Ruchika at point-B alongwith others. The evidence of Sh. S.C. Girhotra

is direct evidence to substantiate the fact that accused visited the house of

Sh. S.C. Girhotra on 11-8-1990 and asked him to send Ms. Ruchika to his

office on 12-8-1990 at 12:00 noon.

14.Ld. PP submitted that Ms. Ruchika (since deceased) and Ms. Aradhana

went to play at lawn tennis court on 11-8-1990 and while they were playing

Sh. Paltoo, the ball picker came there and told Ms. Ruchika that Sh.

Rathore had called her to his office at 12:00 noon. Accordingly, Ms.

Ruchika and Ms. Aradhana went to office of HLTA where they met the

accused. Accused sent Ms. Aradhana to fetch the coach Sh. T. Thomas.

While Ms Aradhana had left the office, accused molested / outraged the

modesty of Ms. Ruchika. When Ms. Aradhana returned, she herself saw

the accused molesting Ms. Ruchika. There is overwhelming evidence to

substantiate this allegation. Ms. Aradhana in her statement has deposed

that on that day when both of them i.e. Ms. Ruchika and Ms. Aradhana

were playing tennis, Sh. Paltoo, the ball picker came and informed Ms.

Ruchika that Sh. SPS Rathore had called her in HLTA office. They both

went there to meet the accused in the office. They saw that accused was


17/97

CBI Vs SPS Rathore

17

standing outside his office. The accused on seeing them proceeded to his

office and asked them to follow him, whereupon Ms. Ruchika requested

the accused to talk to her outside the office, but accused insisted to her to

come in the office. They followed him towards the office. On reaching

inside the office, on being asked by the accused a chair was brought on

which she (PW-13) sat down and Ruchika remained standing. The accused

directed not to bring another chair. Immediately thereafter, the accused

asked Ms. Aradhana to fetch the coach Mr. T. Thomas. Witness left Ms.

Ruchika there in the office and went to call the coach. When she went at

back of the house of the accused, she found coach Sh. T.Thomas standing

at a distance on the other side of the house across the road. She asked Sh.

Paltoo to go and fetch the coach. Mr. Paltoo by gesture indicated her that

he has refused to come. Thereafter Ms. Aradhana returned and when she

entered the office, she saw that the accused was holding one hand of Ms.

Ruchika and his other hand was around her waist and he had embraced

her. Ms. Ruchika was trying hard to get herself released by pushing him

away with her other hand. On seeing the witness there, the accused

became nervous and left Ms. Ruchika and fell down on the chair. Witness

informed the accused that coach has refused to come, thereupon, the

accused forcefully asked the witness to go again and call the coach

personally. In the meantime Ms. Ruchika tried to come to the side of the

witness. Accused asked Ms. Ruchika to stay there and asked the witness

again to fetch the coach. Ms. Ruchika came near the witness and went out

of the office. When Aradhana also wanted to follow her, the accused told

her (Aradhana) ask her to cool down, I will do whatever she will say.


18/97

CBI Vs SPS Rathore

18

Thereafter, the witness followed Ms. Ruchika who was running. When

witness caught up Ms. Ruchika, she started weeping loudly, thereupon the

witness inquired from Ms. Ruchika as to what had happened. Ms. Ruchika

narrated that as soon as she had left to fetch the coach, the accused caught

hold of her hand which she got released with great difficulty, but the

accused again caught hold her hand and with his other hand the accused

caught hold of her waist and dragged her towards him and embraced her,

while she was pushing him. She further informed that in the meantime you

(Aradhana) reached there and on seeing her (Aradhana), he left her. After

that both of them discussed and decided not to informed their parents as

Sh. SPS Rathore being high ranking police officer could harm their

families. Their apprehension was not misplaced as later on the brother of

Ms.Ruchika namely Ashu was got implicated by the accused in false case

and the accused arranged demonstrations against the victim with the help

of paid demonstrators to harass her. From the statement of eye witness,

the molestation of Ms. Ruchika by the accused is well proved. There was no

reason for Ms. Aradhana to depose false. The fact regarding molestation of

Ms. Ruchika has been stated on oath by Sh. Anand Prakash (PW-1), Mrs.

Madhu Prakash (PW-2), Mr. Manish Arora (PW-3), Mr. Vipul

Chanana(PW-4) and Sh. S.C. Girhotra (PW-15).

15. Ld. PP further argued that on next date i.e. on 13-8-1990 it was Monday

and on Monday the loan tennis court used to remain close for

playing, therefore, these two girls did not go on that date for playing. These

two girls used to play tennis in the evening at 6:30 p.m. In the evening

almost daily, the accused used to visit the lawn tennis courts. These girls


19/97

CBI Vs SPS Rathore

19

in order to avoid him thought it proper to go for playing at 4:30 p.m. on

14-8-1990. At about 6:30 p.m. on that day when they were about to return

after practice Sh. Paltoo, came over the lawn tennis court and told Ms.

Ruchika that accused had called her in his office immediately. However,

Ms. Ruchika refused to go there and told Ms. Aradhana that since they had

not informed about the incident which took place on 12-8-1990 to their

parents that has emboldened the accused. There upon, they decided to

inform their parents. They went to the house of Ms. Ruchika where they

met Sh. S.C.Girhotra, father of Ms. Ruchika. Ms. Ruchika tried to narrate

the incident to her father, but she could not narrate the same and broke

down, whereupon her father told Ms. Aradhana to take her to her mother.

They went to the house of Ms. Aradhana where Mrs. Madhu Prakash(PW-

2) and Sh. Anand Prakash (PW-1) were present. Ms. Ruchika disclosed the

entire incident to PW-2 Mrs. Madhu Prakash who informed to her

husband about the said incident. Thereafter, Ms. Ruchika, Aradhana, Sh.

Anand Prakash, Mrs. Madhu Prakash and Sh. S.C. Girhotra and other

persons went to HLTA court to meet Sh. SPS Rathore. They came to know

that Sh. Rathore has already left the HLTA. They waited for about about 45

minutes and thereafter dispersed.

16.On 15-8-1990 number of persons who were mostly players and their

parents collected at the residence of Sh. Anand Prakash. They decided that

the incident should be brought to the notice of higher authorities including

the Chief Minister of Haryana. Accordingly a memorandum Ex P-1 was

prepared. A number of copies of this memorandum were prepared for

being handed over to different authorities. This memorandum was signed


20/97

CBI Vs SPS Rathore

20

by Sh. Anand Prakash, Ms. Ruchika, Mrs. Madhu Prakash, Meenu,

Sangeet, Aradhana, Anirudh, Beenu, Naresh Mittal, C.S.Gupta and Sh. I.

D. Mittal. The witnesses who were examined in the court identified their

signatures as well as signatures of Ms. Ruchika on the memorandum. The

accused disputed the genuineness of signatures of Ms. Ruchika. He has

tried to substantiate his contention by examining hand writing expert. The

contention of accused is not tenable as the witnesses who have been

examined by the prosecution and in whose presence the memorandum was

signed, have identified the signatures of Ms. Ruchika. Sh. Anand Prakash

has proved the preparation of memorandum. The law is very clear that a

fact should be proved by best available evidence. The witnesses have

identified the signatures of Ms. Ruchika on the memorandum, therefore,

the evidence of the hand writing expert can not be considered to be safe

and requires corroboration from independent witnesses. As already stated

the signature of Ms. Ruchika has been proved by the witnesses that is

direct and primary evidence, therefore, it can be relied upon.

17. On 16-8-1990, Sh. Anand Praksh, Mrs. Madhu Prakash, Sh. Naresh Mittal,

Ms. Aradhana, Sh. S.C Girhotra, Ms. Ruchika and some more persons went

to Civil Secretariat to meet the Chief Minister and the Home Minister, but

they were not available there, therefore, a memorandum Ex P-1 was given

to Sh. J. K. Duggal, the then Home Secretary (PW-11) who assured them

that the matter would be enquired into. He asked those persons who had

gone to the Secretariat to reach lawn tennis court where Sh. S. K. Joshi,

SDM would also be reaching. After that they went to lawn tennis court and

assembled there at about 5:00 p.m. Those persons found a notice dated 15-


21/97

CBI Vs SPS Rathore

21

8-1990 declaring suspension of Ms. Ruchika w.e.f. 13-8-1990 displayed

there on the notice board. Sh. S. K. Joshi, SDM also reached there. Sh.

Kuldeep Singh and Sh. T. Thomas were present there. On being enquired,

Kuldeep Singh in the presence of witnesses, informed that he has affixed

the notice Ex P-2 on the directions of accused Sh. SPS Rathore. He further

disclosed that Ms. Ruchika has committed no act of indiscipline. On being

asked Sh. Kuldeep Singh gave the same facts in writing on the notice. This

fact was confirmed by coach Sh. T. Thomas and he signed at point I

supporting the contents of the endorsement of Sh. Kuldeep Singh. He was

also asked to give in writing, if no act of indiscipline has been committed

by Ms. Ruchika. On this, he made an endorsement to the effect that to the

best of his knowledge Ms. Ruchika has not done act of misbehavior or

indiscipline in the HLTA tennis courts. This notice was produce by Sh.

Anand Prakash at the time of his deposition. It has come in his evidence

that said notice was given to him by the SDM immediately after making

endorsement. These facts have been proved by PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-4,

PW-5 and PW-13. The presence of Sh. Kuldeep Singh and Sh. T. Thomas

on that day and time has already been proved by Sh. Anil Dhawan, SHO,

Panchkula (PW-10). He was on patrolling duty on that date and on

receiving verbal transmission message about the incident, he reached on

the spot. He further stated that on being called by Sh. SPS Rathore, he

went to his residence at about 9:00 p.m. on 16-8-1990 itself. At that time,

Manager Sh. Kuldeep Singh, coach Sh. T. Thomas and one more person

were also present there besides IG (Accused) himself. Sh. Rathore

complained that some boy/girl players and their parents had beaten Sh.


22/97

CBI Vs SPS Rathore

22

Kuldeep Singh and Sh. T. Thomas and one watchman and took away the

registers alongwith money etc. But he deposed that on that date when he

had gone to lawn tennis court, Sh. Kuldeep Singh and Sh. T. Thomas did

not complain about the beating given by those persons.

18.On 17-8-1990 at about 12:00 noon Sh. Anand Prakash alongwith other

persons met the Chief Minister Sh. Hukam Singh who told him that the

facts related to the incident have come to his knowledge and he has

ordered for enquiry in the matter to be conducted by Senior most police

officer Sh. R.R. Singh and he will submit his report expeditiously. This fact

is corroborated by PW-2, PW-5 and PW-15.

19.On 18-8-1990 Sh. Anand Prakash and Sh. S.C. Girhotra went to police

station Panchkula and met Sh. Anil Dhawan, SHO, Panchkula and handed

over to him a hand written report Ex P-3 alongwith photo copy of

memorandum Ex P-4.

20.Sh. R.R. Singh was directed by the Chief Minister and Home Minister to

conduct the enquiry into the allegations contained in the memorandum Ex

P-1. In compliance of the said order Sh. R. R. Singh recorded the

statements of the witnesses including Mrs. Madhu Prakash, Ms. Rimmu,

Sh. S.C. Girhotra and Anil Dhawan. The statements of Ms. Ruchika and Sh.

Anand Prakash were also recorded. After the enquiry, he recommended

that a case under appropriate sections of IPC be got registered on the

statement of Ms.Ruchika and investigated. Despite the fact that Sh. R.R.

Singh had recommended the registration of case against the accused, no

action was taken by the Government. It is most surprising that no value

was attached to the report and recommendation made by such a highest


23/97

CBI Vs SPS Rathore

23

rank police officer i.e. Director General of Police, Haryana. It shows that

how much clout the accused was having on the Government. The accused

has alleged that Sh. B.S. Ojha and Sh. J. K. Duggal were having great

grudge against him. But when the report was submitted Sh. B. S. Ojha was

working as P.S. to Chief Minister and Sh. Duggal was working as Home

Secretary. If the contention of the accused has got any truth, then officers

who were holding the highest position in the Government would have got

the case registered against the accused immediately. It shows that they

were having no grudge. The accused has alleged that relations between him

and Sh. R.R. Singh were strained since 1976. But this suggestion of the

accused was denied by the witness while appearing in the court. It shows

that proper report was given by Sh. R.R. Singh, otherwise also, it is a

matter of common experience that no girl or father would make a

complaint of such heinous nature even against their enemy.

21.Sh.R.R.Singh had conducted the enquiry under the orders of Government

of Haryana,therefore,he was competent to investigate/enquire into the

allegations made in the memorandum Ex P-1. As such,all the statements

recorded by him are admissible under section 157 of Indian Evidence Act

for the purpose of corroboration. The word investigation mentioned in

section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act should not be construed too

narrowly. The word investigation in this section has been used in broader

sense. It's scope does not limit itself to the investigationas envisaged in

Cr.P.C. It is not out of context to mention that statements of witnesses

recorded by police officers under provisions of Cr.P.C. can not be utilised

for the purpose of corroboration. Section 162 of Cr.P.C. clearly forbids the


24/97

CBI Vs SPS Rathore

24

use of such statements for corroboration. Such statements can be used for

the purpose of contradicting the witness. Therefore, it is amply clear that

word investigation as provided in section 157 of Indian Evidence Act can

not be construed narrowly and it is clear that statements of witnesses who

were examined in the court can be corroborated with the statements

recorded by Sh. R.R. Singh.

22.As already stated Sh. J. K. Duggal and Sh. B.S.Ojha are independent

witnesses and they have no grudge against the accused as alleged by the

accused. For the sake of arguments, even if it is assumed to be correct that

there was some dispute over the control of HLTA between the accused and

the two, it was not such a big issue which would have induced them to

implicate the accused falsely. There is no evidence on record to

substantiate the allegations of accused that these two officers were in any

way instrumental for preparation of memorandum or implicating the

accused in this case. There is no evidence on record to suggest any nexus of

these two officers with Sh. Anand Prakash and Sh. S.C. Girhotra. There is

no evidence to suggest any enmity between the accused and Sh. Anand

Prakash to implicate the accused in such a case falsely.

23.The accused has alleged that Sh. Anand Prakash had a motive to implicate

him falsely. He has examined Sh. Shadi Lal Malik as DW-6 in that

connection. Sh. Shadi Lal has stated that in the month of

October/November 1973 one MLA Mr. Garg alongwith Sh. Babu Lal, father

of Sh. Anand Prakash came in the office of Sh. SPS Rathore who was

working as S. P. Kurukshetra at that time. Sh. Garg introduced Sh. Babu

Lal to the SP and stated that he is a good man and his son is Engineer and


25/97

CBI Vs SPS Rathore

25

there were false complaints of Satta against him. On this Sh. Rathore asked

the Head clerk to connect him to SHO, Ladwa. He stated to SHO that if the

complaint is correct then he should be put behind the bar, otherwise he

should not be harassed. There is nothing in the said statement which may

lead to infer any type of enmity between the accused and Sh. Anand

Prakash or his father. Moreover, it is quite improbable for a person to

remember such a petty matter after a gap of 35 years. The statement of

DW-6 was recorded on 5-3-2008 after a long gap. However, no

documentary evidence has been adduced by the accused to substantiate

such allegations, therefore, the statement of DW-6 can not be safely relied

upon.

24.While cross examining Sh. Shadi Lal, accused came up with a case that Sh.

S.C. Girhotra wanted a heavy amount from the accused for settlement of

the matter in the year of 2001. The accused produced a cassette purported

to be a conversation between Sh. Karam Singh (DW-9) and witness about

the demand of money. The cassette was played for five seconds only in the

court and witness was asked to identify his voice in the said cassette. He,

after hearing the voice in the cassette, denied that it was his voice. His

voice was never got tested by the accused though, the cassette was in his

possession. Therefore, the defence of the accused is not established in any

manner and he levelled false allegations which are likely to be discarded.

Ld. PP submitted that in such circumstances, the commission of offence

punishable u/s 354 of IPC by the accused is clearly proved beyond

reasonable doubt.

25.Ld. defence counsel on the other hand strongly opposed the arguments


26/97

CBI Vs SPS Rathore

26

advanced by ld. PP for the CBI. Ld. Defence counsel argued for sufficient

long time in detail touching the factual, technical and circumstantial facts

of this case. Ld. Counsel pressed that the case against the accused is

absolutely false and frivolous and the accused has been framed in the

present case by the complainant party and the high level officers of State

with ulterior motive. At the very outset, ld. Defence counsel pointed that

the IAS lobby in the Government of Haryana was entirely against the

accused and it has collided with Sh. Anand Prakash and others against the

accused. The reason for that is that there was rivalry between the two

tennis association, one headed by the accused and one formed later on by

the IAS group with Sh. J. K. Duggal, Home Secretary as its president with

the patronage of Sh. B.S. Ojha. Earlier to that they pressurized the accused

to step down from the Presidentship of HLTA in favour of Sh. B.S. Ojha to

which the accused refused. This annoyed Mr. Ojha who had strong reasons

for ordering the enquiry by Sh. R.R.Singh and police officers working

under him had arganised the drafting of memorandum against the

accused. Sh. J. K. Duggal had ordered to take over the coaching centre of

the accused. After refusal of the accused, the another group had formed

their separate association named as HTA (Haryana Tennis Association).

Due to that grudge, the accused has been framed in the present case and

the IAS lobby sided with the complainant party to harass the accused. Ld.

Counsel stated that with this background, the false proceedings were

initiated against the accused. Ld. Counsel argued that the prosecution has

failed to prove this case against the accused from every angle. The case has

been registered against the accused after a long delay which itself is fatal


27/97

CBI Vs SPS Rathore

27

for the case of prosecution. The witnesses of the prosecution are not

trustworthy. The main documents like Ex P-1, Ex P-2 and Ex P-3 of the

case of the prosecution can not be relied upon as those are forged. The

story of the prosecution is highly improbable as nothing like that, as

alleged by the prosecution, can happen in the broad day light, in the

presence of lot of persons who were working at the alleged place of

incident. Ms. Aradhana @ Reemu is not an eye witness and she has been

planted in the present case. Ms. Ruchika, the alleged complainant has not

been examined by the prosecution as she has already expired. Therefore,

FIR Ex P-1 is not admissible in evidence and can not be relied upon. In the

same way, FIR written on the basis of statement of Miss Ruchika can not

be read into evidence.

The enquiry held by Sh. R. R. Singh can not be relied upon because no

enquiry could be marked to him and he has not held the enquiry in proper

manner. The present case is only counter blast of the complainant side as a

case has been filed by the accused for defamation u/s 500 of IPC against

many members of the complainant party including representatives of

media. The media has played negative role in the present case and

published the selective news items only in collusion with the complainant

party. The material witnesses like ball picker Paltoo and coach K.T.

Thomas who were allegedly present on the spot, have not been examined

by the prosecution. The witnesses have made a lot of improvements in

their case and there are other discrepancies also in the statements of

witnesses due to which they can not be relied upon. The defence

has also adduced sufficient evidence and succeeded in proving that


28/97

CBI Vs SPS Rathore

28

the case of prosecution is false and frivolous, the net result of which is that

the prosecution has failed to prove its case and the accused is entitled to be

acquitted.

26.The above arguments were further elaborated by ld. Defence counsel

taking one by one and written arguments were also supplied by ld. Defence

counsel in the court. The contention of ld. Defence counsel is that the very

basis of the case of the prosecution that is memorandum Ex P-1 on the

basis of which FIR was registered, is unreliable, false and forged

document. Ex P-1 has been drafted after prolonged consideration and

deliberation by several interested persons including senior police officers

working under Sh. B.S. Ojha including I.G. Sh. C. P. Bansal and DSP Sh.

Sham Lal Goyal after delay of five days, as such, this document gives a

coloured and tainted version which can not be relied upon. Moreover, this

document does not disclose the details of the incident. It merely suggests

that accused misbehaved with Ms. Ruchika which does not attract section

354 of IPC. The name of the players who were allegedly accompanying Ms.

Ruchika has not been mentioned in the memorandum intentionally and

later on Ms. Anuradha @ Reemu has been planted as Sathi Khladi. The

signature of Ms. Ruchika on Ex P-1 are not proved and those are false and

forged. The alleged signature of Ms. Ruchika are at point B. One more

application was allegedly given to SHO, Panchkula which is on record as

Ex P-3 and the signature of Ms. Ruchika on that application is at mark A.

Both the signatures are different which are visible from the naked eye and

can be appreciated by the court also. However, the expert has also been

examined by the defence. The expert opined that the person given his


29/97

CBI Vs SPS Rathore

29

signature on Ex P-1 marke X 1 did not write the signature on Ex P-3 mark

X2. Thus, these documents can not read into evidence. It has also revealed

from the report of expert DW-10 that said document Ex P-1 is a photo copy

and it is not original document. On this ground also, these documents can

not be relied upon. Moreover, proper date of preparation of Ex P-1 is not

disclosed by the witnesses. Some of the witnesses states that it was

prepared on 15-8-1990 while some of the witnesses have signed it giving

the date as 16-8-1990. Other document Ex P-2 is also tempered with by

way of trimming the lower edge of the document, which has also come in

the evidence of expert. In such circumstances, the document on the basis

of which FIR was allegedly registered has not been proved by the

prosecution and the document has been proved false and forged by the

defence, therefore, it can not be relied upon and this fact is sufficient to

demolish the entire case of the prosecution.

27.Ld. defence counsel argued that it is very significant to note that no

complaint was filed by Ms. Ruchika or her father Sh. S. C. Girhotra or Sh.

Ashu, elder brother of Ms. Ruchika or Mrs. Madhu Prakash (PW-2) or Sh.

Anand Prakash (PW-1) or by Ms. Reemu (PW-13) in the police post of

police station or police station or before any other authority on 12-8-1990

of afterwards. Even after 14-8-1990 when Ms. Ruchika and Aradhana

allegedly informed their parents, none of that approached the police to file

FIR. The police post, Sector 6, Panchkula is at a distance of 300 Yards only

from the tennis court. It is situated very near to the house of Sh.

S.C.Girhotra also. In this way undue and unexplained delay resulted in

manipulations and proper version could not be put before the court. In


30/97

CBI Vs SPS Rathore

30

support of her arguments, Ld. counsel relied upon the law bearing citation

Ram Jag and others Vs State of UP CLJ 1974, Awadhesh and

others VS State of Madhya Pradesh-1988 (2) SCC 557, Devi Lal

Vs State of Haryana AICLR 1999-709. Non mentioning the name of

Sathi Khiladi effects the veracity of prosecution case. In support of her

arguments, Ld. counsel relied upon the case bearing citation Ram Kumar

Pandey Vs State of Madhya Pradesh 1975 CLJ 870. If the

complainant was aggrieved by any action of the police, then modalities

contain in section 190 r/w section 200 of Cr. P.C. were to be adopted.

Reliance was placed in this regard on law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme

Court in case Aleque Padamsee and others Vs UOI and others

2007 (6) SCC 171. But no such step was taken by the complainant. In this

way, Mrs. Madhu Prakash and her family members abused the process of

law which makes the prosecution case untenable. PW-1, PW-2, PW-5, PW-

13 and PW-14 can not be relied upon because of improvement and

contradictions in their statements. These witnesses as well as PW-3, PW-4

and PW-12 are interested witnesses. There exists enmity between these

PWs and accused because of filing of criminal defamation case u/s 500 IPC

on 18-8-1990 in the court of Ld. Judicial Magistrate, Ambala by the

accused. All these persons except PW-12 are summoned accused in that

case. In such circumstances, they can not be relied upon. In support of her

arguments, Ld. counsel relied upon the law laid down in cases bearing

citation Kartik Malhar Vs State of Bihar: AICLR 1995 (3) 622,

Pandurang Sitaram Bhagwat Vs State of Maharastra 2005 (1)

RCR (Crl) 858. Statement of Ms. Anuradha @ Reemu that Ms. Ruchika


31/97

CBI Vs SPS Rathore

31

told her that Rathore Sahib caught hold her hand which was rescued by

her with great difficulty, but again he caught hold hand of Ms. Ruchika and

put his another hand around her waist and pressed her with his chest and

that Ms. Ruchika continuously tried to rescue her, are inadmissible in

evidence being hearsay. This part of the statement made by Ms. Reemu is

an after thought and improvement. These averments were not contained in

Ex P-1 dated 16-8-1990. These averments are not contained in Ex P-3 and

Ex P-4. Her statement is not admissible on the plea of res gestae u/s 6 of

the Evidence Act because the statement for declaration must be

contemporaneous/simultaneous with the transaction. It must be

spontaneous statement during the transaction, closely associated with the

thing being done. The statement allegedly made by Ms. Ruchika to Ms.

Reemu was not immediately made when Ms. Reemu allegedly saw the

misbehavior. Ms Reemu remained in HLTA office listening to alleged

conversation with Mr. Rathore and later some more time had elapsed in

catching up Ms. Ruchika by Ms. Reemu. Thereafter, she enquired from Ms.

Ruchika as to what happened, then Ruchika narrated the alleged story.

This narration has come after lapse of some time, therefore, can not be

relied upon. In support of her arguments, Ld. counsel relied upon the law

laid down in cases bearing citation 1971 CLJ 172 Vol 177 CN 57, Teper

Vs Reginan, AIR 1958 Cal 482 (V.45.C-121), Partap Singh V State

of Madhaya Pradesh 1991 CLJ 172, Hadu Vs The State AIR (38)

1951 Orrisa 53, AIR 1931 Mad. 233(2), Sreehari Swarnakar Vs

Emperor AIR 1930 Cal. 132, Raman and others Vs King Emperor

AIR 1921 Lahor 258, Mohammad Afzal Vs Crown AIR (37) 1950


32/97

CBI Vs SPS Rathore

32

Lahor, State Vs Bihari Lal, Pahu Lal,1953 Crl LJ 1427, 1980 Cr LJ

NOC 13 Kant, 1996 6SCC 241.

28.The enquiry conducted by Sh. R.R. Singh can not be read into evidence

and can not be safely relied upon because he had no authority to conduct

the enquiry and no proper directions were given to him to conduct the

enquiry. Moreover, he has not recorded the statements of the witnesses of

the defence due to which the enquiry was not impartial. The alleged

statement of Ms. Ruchika before Sh. R. R. Singh has already been held to

be inadmissible by the CBI court at that time and the order has been

upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The statement

of PW-1, PW-3, PW-5, PW-13 and PW-15 recorded by Sh. R. R. Singh on

21-8-1990 i.e. Nine days after the alleged incident can also not be read into

evidence as per the provisions of section 157 of Evidence Act. In support of

her arguments, Ld. counsel relied upon the law laid down in cases bearing

citationAIR (932) 1945 Madras 358, AIR (36) 1949 Cal. 629, AIR

1960 Allahabad 339, AIR 1928 Cal. 732, AIR 1928C 893, 110 IC

521, (1991) 1 Malayam LJ 106 Penang High Court Rajan Vs State

of Kerla 1992 Crl. LJ 575, 578 Kerla, John's V SC and C. Railway

co. 1918, 87 LJKB 775, Robinson Vs Stern 1939 2 Alla. ER 683,

1951 All Law Journal 149 (152), 1910-6 Madras LT 17 (21) (FB),

AIR 1949 Cal. 629 (6). The enquiry of Sh. R. R. Singh is also not

admissible in evidence as administrative enquiry and its report is

inadmissible. In support of her arguments, Ld. counsel relied upon the law

laid down in case bearing citation Jagbir Singh Vs State of Haryana:

1994 (2) RCR. The sketch map and its legend Ex P8/A is not admissible


33/97

CBI Vs SPS Rathore

33

for corroboration as per section 162 of Cr. P.C. as it was prepared at the

pointing of PW-13 Ms. Reemu which has been proved by PW-9 Sh. Sunil,

draftsman. In support of her arguments, Ld. counsel relied upon the law

laid down in case bearing citation 1976 CLJ 1162 (a) Crl. PC (5 of

1898).

29.Ld. defence counsel argued that prosecution story is un-natural and

concocted. As per prosecution case, Ms. Ruchika and Ms. Reemu remained

silent for three days and did not disclose the incident to their parents on

account of alleged fear /apprehension from the accused that he would

involve their parents in false cases. It is a very adult argument which no

minor girl of 13 years can think of. It is generally true that minor children

look towards their parents for counselling, sharing and sympathy when

they are emotionally disturbed. PW-2 Mrs. Madhu Prakash and Reemu in

their statements have stated that Ms. Ruchika was having very close

relations with Mrs. Madhu Prakash and she treated her like her mother.

Then how Ms. Ruchika could withhold the said incident from Mrs. Madhu

Prakash. It is beyond comprehension and unbelievable. Ms. Ruchika was

daughter of Sh. S. C. Girhotra who was manager of UCO Bank. As per

statement of Sh. S. C. Girhotra, uncle of Ruchika lived in Parwanoo and

owns an industrial shed. Ms. Ruchika's Bua was working in Bank of

Rajasthan. Real Nana of Ruchika was DSP CBI, Ambala in 1976. Ruchika's

Nana had his house in Panchkula and brother in law of Sh. S.C. Girhotra

and his wife resides in Panchkula. The accused was posted on deputation

to BBMB on 12-8-1990. As per statement of Sh. S.C. Girhotra, his daughter

was studying in Sacred Heart School and he wanted to send his daughter


34/97

CBI Vs SPS Rathore

34

abroad. Thus, Ruchika was convent educated girl, very rich and had

influential background. She was modern and friendly with male trainees in

HLTA training court. It is too unnatural and improbable that a girl with

such a profile and background could entertain any apprehension from the

accused who did not wield any influence over the Panchkula police, as he

was on deputation to BBMB. It is further borne out from the admitted facts

that PW-10, SHO Panchkula did not register an FIR on the complaint of

manager of HLTA made on 16/17-8-90 which had been brought to

knowledge of SHO personally by the accused. In such factual scenario, this

is beyond reason to believe that two girls would entertain any fear against

the accused. The hypothesis of fear and apprehension is further shattered

by the fact that they went to play tennis in coaching centre on 14-8-1990 in

their own shift after Ruchika's visit to HLTA office on 12-8-1990. If they

were really scared with the position of the accused then why Ruchika

would have gone to play tennis in HLTA courts on 14-8-1990 which were

still under the control of Mr. Rathore and who remained the IG and

President of HLTA on that day also.

30.Ld. defence counsel contended that there are material contradictions in

Reemu's statement before the court due to which she is totally unreliable

witness and her evidence is unacceptable. She on one hand says that she

and Ruchika wanted to avoid Mr. Rathore on 14-8-1990 who comes to play

tennis at 6:30 p.m. and hence they went to play tennis at 4:30 p.m. but as

per her own statement, they stayed on the tennis court beyond 6:30 p.m. If

a witness who is only witness against the accused can modulate his

evidence to suit a particular prosecution theory for the deliberate purpose


35/97

CBI Vs SPS Rathore

35

of securing conviction, such a witness can not be considered reliable. In

support of her arguments, Ld. counsel relied upon the law laid down by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in case bearing citation Badri Vs State of

Rajasthan AIR 1976 SC 560. In addition to above ld. Counsel also

relied upon the law bearing citation Maharj Deen and another Vs The

State 1996 CLJ 506, Tej Singh vs State of Rajasthan 1995 CLJ

1944 Raj. Further Ms. Aradhana is falsely introduced eye witness of the

prosecution. Prosecution has not produced any witness to prove that

he/she saw Reemu in HLTA office on 12-8-1990 at 12:00 hours. Even PW-

15 Sh. S.C. Girhotra has testified that he saw Ruchika going from house to

HLTA office on 12-8-1990 around 12:00 hours and testified that she went

alone. The prosecution has not examined Sh. Paltoo and coach who

according to Reemu's statement were present in HLTA office on 12-8-1990

at 12:00 hours. This raises presumption against the prosecution that if

these witnesses had been examined, they would not have supported the

prosecution version. In support of her case ld. Counsel relied upon the law

bearing citation Habib Mohd. Vs State of Hyderabad AIR 1954 SC

51, Rama @ Dhaktu Worak Vs State AIR 1969 Goa, Daman and

Diu Vs State .

31.Ld. counsel contended that Ms. Reemu is unreliable witness. There are

contradictions and improvements in her evidence. Reemu explained in her

deposition after 15 years of the alleged incident that she is Sathi Khiladi as

mentioned in Ex P-1, but it can not be accepted as the same has come after

15 years. Ms. Ruchika played with many girls and boys besides Ms. Reemu.

This fact is deposed by Ms. Reemu in her statement, Ruchi was one of


36/97

CBI Vs SPS Rathore

36

them. Ruchi has signed at point H in complaint Ex P-3, but not on Ex P-1.

Investigation Officer Sh. Rajesh Ranjan has neither examined Ruchi u/s

161 Cr. P.C., although her signature and her mother's signature appears on

Ex P-3, which has been admitted by PW-2 during her cross examination,

nor investigated on this aspect and gave any findings. These facts lead to

the probability that Sathi Khiladi in Ex P-1 which had been prepared after

due deliberation, was mentioned for the purpose of introducing an eye

witness of choice. Ms. Ruchika was neither close to Ms. Reemu nor her

parents. PW-13, PW-1 and PW-2 have attempted to project that Ms.

Reemu and Ruchika were close friends and Ruchika was more close to

Smt. Madhu Prakash, the mother of Ms. Reemu. This has been proved

wrong and untenable by the facts and circumstances testified by PW-13,

PW-15, PW-1 and PW2 themselves. PW-13 Ms. Aradhana @ Reemu stated

in her statement that Ruchika used to play tennis with other players also

and some times she used to play with Munish too. Reemu's close

friendship with Ruchika is ruled out because Reemu did not go to see

Ruchika when she was ill in PGI nor went to see her when she died or

visited during her Kirya ceremony. Even her parents did not visit Ruchika

and her father on either of these occasions which has come in the evidence

of PW-1 and PW-2. Reemu even did not know the correct house address of

Ruchika, nor she knew her pet name as Rubby. She even did not know

Ruchika's father's profession. Even Ruchika's father Sh. S.C. Girhotra

stated that he knew Sh. Anand Prakash and his wife by name only. He self

stated that he came to know them after the incident. The cumulative effect

of aforesaid facts disproves the existence of any close relationship between


37/97

CBI Vs SPS Rathore

37

Reemu and Ruchika or between their parents. There are fatal

contradictions in the testimonies of PW-13 Reemu and PW-15 Sh. S.C.

Girhotra which disproves the prosecution story that Reemu accompanied

Ruchika to HLTA office at 12 hours on 12-8-1990. Reemu has stated that

on that date at about 11:00 a.m. Ruchika came to her house who was

seeing to be excited....... After that they went to HLTA to play. At that time

Paltoo, ball picker informed Ruchika that she has been called at 12:00

hours in the office by Sh. SPS Rathore. On the other hand PW-15 Sh. S.C.

Girhotra stated in his statement that Ruchika went to play tennis in

evening and not in the morning...... On 12-8-1990 she went to see the

accused at 12:00 O'clock. She went from the house about 15-20 minutes

prior to 12:00 O'clock. At that time, she was not having anything in her

hands. At another place in his statement, he says that Ruchika had her own

tennis racket which she used to take while playing. It has also come in his

evidence that traveling distance between his house and HLTA office was

approximately 15 minutes. The evidence of Sh. S.C. Girhora, father of Ms.

Ruchika, thus, completely falsify Reemu's story that Ruchika went to the

house of Reemu and spent some time in making alleged conversation and

later on went from Reemu's residence to HLTA courts which is again 10-15

minutes walking time. Ruchika could reach HLTA office around 12:00

hours if she goes directly from her house to HLTA. It, therefore, ruled out

the probability of Ruchika meeting Reemu on 12-8-1990 after she left her

home.

32.Conduct of Ms. Reemu of being mere spectator in HLTA office on 12-8-

1990 is very unnatural. She nowhere in her statement deposed that she


38/97

CBI Vs SPS Rathore

38

protested to the accused when she allegedly saw the accused forcibly

hugging Ruchika. She in her deposition has admitted the presence of two

officials of HLTA i.e. Paltoo and coach when she had gone to HLTA on 12-

8-1990. Both Ms. Ruchika and Ms. Reemu were fully acquainted and have

been dealing with them in coaching centre every day. If she was present

with Ruchika and seen anything objectionable, she would have naturally

been entertained and raised alarm or called Paltoo spontaneously for help.

Neither did Reemu nor Ruchika raised any alarm. The conduct of Reemu

of being silent mute spectator without resistance what they saw at the time

of alleged incident is very unnatural and nullifies her presence with

Ruchika on 12-8-1990 at HLTA office. The prosecution has not given any

explanation in regard to the said unnatural conduct and not examining

Paltoo and coach, therefore, it raised presumption against the prosecution.

In support of his arguments, Ld. counsel relied upon the law laid down in

case Sardar Singh Vs State of Haryana, State of Rajasthan Vs

Bhanwar Singh 2005 SCC (Crl) 73.

33.The next contention of ld. Defence counsel is that Ex PW8/A and its legend

negates Reemu's story of alleged incident. DW-1, DW-2, DW-4 and DW-16

have proved that there were wooden doors with windows in which plain

glass was fixed, in front of garage. PW-9 also proved that there was glazing

at point X in Ex PW8/A. Reemu has got legend of site prepared indicating

different situations / positions of chairs, tables, Ruchika and accused on

12-8-1990. But she did not remember about the partition at point X which

she had seen only five years ago i.e. 27-1-2000. This indicates that the

witness is not speaking truth before the court. Her version that the accused


39/97

CBI Vs SPS Rathore

39

fell down in his chair as soon as Reemu returned after calling the coach,

proved false by the legend which was prepared on her pointing.

34.It is also the contention of Ld. Defence counsel that minor girl's testimony

can not be relied upon. Reemu was minor girl aged about 13 years at the

time of alleged incident in 1990. She was examined on 5-3-2005 when she

was 28 years old. She was totally under the influence of her parents who

were accused in defamation complaint u/s 500 IPC instituted on 18-8-

1990. As such, her evidence can not be relied upon. In support of her

arguments, Ld. counsel relied upon the law Bhag Singh Vs State

ofHaryana PLR Vol. LXXXI 1979 page 265.

35.Ld. Defence counsel argued that the antecedents of the complainant and

her family members who have forged and fabricated documents, show that

the accused has been framed by them. Mrs. Madhu Prakash wife of Sh.

Anand Prakash is an advocate, hence her averments in Ex P-3 that they

have no knowledge of law is potently false. She filed Criminal Misc. no.

1694 to 1697 wherein she sworn affidavit that the facts stated therein are in

her knowledge, whereas she has no personal knowledge of facts stated

therein. Her statement that she was more close to Ruchika is belied by the

fact that she did not visit Ruchika during her illness in PGI nor she

attended her cremation. Filing of Criminal Misc. Petitions in the Hon'ble

High Court was the counter blast of the defamation case. She has admitted

that she was having friendly relations with police rivals of the accused.

36.Sh. Anand Prakash husband of Mrs. Madhu Prakash was Superintending

Engineer in Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board. He was

compulsorily retired from the service. There were adverse reports of


40/97

CBI Vs SPS Rathore

40

corruption and intergue and for causing losses to the Government. He

challenged his compulsory retirement by filing writ petition. In that writ

petition, the Haryana Government and Marketing Board filed their written

statement. This written statement contains the bad service record and his

character traits etc. Suit for recovery is also pending against him in the

name of A. P. Singh. He alongwith his wife and others had prepared Ex P-1

on 15-8-1990. It is in evidence of PW-4 that Sh. Anand Prakash got

signature of PW-4 on prepared draft of EX P-4 at latter's residence on 18-

8-1990. He had also prepared Ex P-3 on pre signed pages. He and his wife

and others have interpolated lines in certified copies of document Ex DC

which prosecution has attached with the challan. The said facts proves

bolstering up of the case of prosecution by filling up lacunas for securing

conviction. DW-6 has given evidence of past enmity of Sh. Anand

Prakash's family. He is pursuing his own vendetta against the accused

assisted behind the scene by various interested persons including service

rivals of the accused. Another witness Sh. Naresh Mittal is an influential

man of Panchkula. He is leader of Aggarwal community. He is son in law of

sister of Sh. Anand Prakash. He is having political and bureaucratic clouts

being office bearer of different associations. His political and bureaucratic

clout and money power as well as his powerful position in the Vaish Smaj

social group in the caste ridden society provided additional courage and

daring to Sh. Anand Prakash and his family to hatch and participate in

conspiracy against the accused. It has come in the evidence that there were

several FIRs lodged against Sh. Naresh Mittal over the years. Sh. S.C.

Girhotra, father of Ms. Ruchika was manager in UCO Bank. He was


41/97

CBI Vs SPS Rathore

41

convicted by CBI for corruption. His father in law was DSP CBI and his

own brother was an industrialist. His sister in law was working in bank in

Chandigarh. These persons were all living in Panchkula. His demand for

money has been tape recorded and put before the court as mark D-55, D-

56, D-57 and D-58. DW-9 and DW-17 have given evidence regarding

demand of money on tape recording of conversation. However, he refused

before the court to get his voice compared. Adverse influence is to be

drawn against him for refusing to get his voice compared. Hence, the

evidence on behalf of witness is coloured and interested.

37.Ld. defence counsel argued that there is material inconsistency and forgery

/manipulation in the prosecution documents made as Exhibits by the

prosecution. Ld. Counsel pressed that documents Ex P1 to Ex P4 are false

and forged. Factum regarding Ex P-1 has already been discussed. As regard

to Ex P-2 ld. Counsel argued that it remained in illegal custody of PW-1

and it was tendered by him in the court first time on 17-4-2003. The

statement therein can not be read as they do not fall under section 157 of

Evidence Act. Coach and Manager who have written the alleged note have

not been produced. Document expert has opined that documents have

been tempered by cutting the bottom of the paper. The SDM had made

some endorsement in Hindi on it which is missing. Ex P-3 complaint

which was organised by PW-1 Sh. Anand Prakash and on 18-8-1990 it was

presented to Sh. Anil Dhawan, the then SHO, Panchkula around 12:00

hours on the same day. Author of the document Ex P-3 is disputed. PW-1

Sh. Anand Prakash say that Ex P-3 is written by him, whereas PW-5 claims

that he wrote Ex P-3. However Ex P-3 was incorrectly made Exhibits, but


42/97

CBI Vs SPS Rathore

42

after that the prosecution failed to prove the signature of Sh. Anand

Prakash and any writing of Sh. Anand Prakash on it. Ex P-3 is, therefore,

defectively proved and can not be read into evidence. It was not clarified

from the remaining signature appearing on the said document. It appears

that complaint was made on a pre signed page. Ex P-3 bear signature

written as Ruchika. Late Ruchika's admitted signatures were not procured

from her school etc. for proving the document allegedly bearing her

signature. Therefore, her signatures are not proved. Ex. P4 is a photo copy

and not original document and is inadmissible in evidence. Material of Ex.

P-4 is the same as Ex P-1. Memorandum Ex P1 is in 5 pages and is signed

by several persons, all of whom are family members of Sh. Anand Prakash

or his close relatives or neighbourers. Memorandum Ex P-4 is in six pages

and is photo copy. On the 6th page, which is back page of 5th page of Ex P-1.

It has approximately 50 signatures. Circumstances as emerged after

recording of prosecution evidence reveals that Ex P-3 and Ex P-4 were

created on 18-8-1990 and signatures were obtained on separate blank

sheets which were then photo stated on the reverse of the back of the 5 th

page. CBI, however, managed to get it Exhibited. In such circumstances,

these documents can not be relied upon.

38.Ld. Defence counsel pressed that adverse presumption is to be drawn

against the prosecution for not producing the material link witnesses, site

witnesses and independent witnesses. The presence of Ball picker Paltoo

and coach T. Thomas in front of HLTA office on 12-8-1990 at 12:00 hours

has been stated by Ms. Aradhana @ Reemu in her statement. Therefore,

Ball Picker Paltoo and Coach T. Thomas Babu Raj were material witnesses


43/97

CBI Vs SPS Rathore

43

of the prosecution. Paltoo was not even examined u/s 161 Cr. P.C.. Both

Paltoo and T. Thomas have not been brought by the prosecution before the

court for examination. This is a serious inconsistency which is fatal to

prosecution. In support of her arguments, Ld. counsel relied upon the law

laid down in cases bearing citation Harijana Thirupala and others VS

Public Prosecutor 2002 (3) RCR Crl 861 SC, State of Punjab Vs

Ajaib Singh 2005 SCC (crl) 43, Jamuna Chaudhary Vs State AIR

1974 SC 1822. No witness from the locality has been examined by the

prosecution, particularly Sh.R.S. Chauhan, his sons Sh. Anup and Sh.

Baboo who assembled on 14-8-1990 before the Panchkula residence of

accused in the evening. Investigation officer has not examined the gunman

of the accused u/s 161 Cr. P.C. and thus did not bring before this court the

evidence of the most natural eye witness. Non examination of this witness

only point out that occurrence as put up by the prosecution before the

court did not take place. In support of her arguments, Ld. counsel relied

upon the law laid down in cases bearing citation Brajabandhu Naik and

others Vs State 1975 Cr LJ 1933, Habib Mohd. Vs State of

Hyderabad AIR 1954 SC 51, Thulla Khali Vs State of Tamil Nadu

AIR 1973 SC 501, Harijana Thirupala and others VS Public

prosecutor 2002 (3) RCR Crl. 861.

39.Ld. counsel further argued that prosecution has failed to prove the

allegations beyond doubt. The prosecution has to stand on its feet and has

to prove the allegations beyond any doubt. In support of her arguments,

Ld. counsel relied upon the law laid down in cases bearing citation State

of Himachal Pradesh Vs Varinder Singh 2002 (2) RCR (Crl) 769,


44/97

CBI Vs SPS Rathore

44

Dwarka Das Vs State of Haryana 2002 (4) RCR (Crl) SC 794. But

the prosecution failed to prove the present case beyond doubt. The

prosecution failed to prove that Ms. Reemu is an eye witness or even a

reliable witness. PW-15 Sh. S.C.Girhotra in his statement dated 30-5-2005

stated that Mr. Rathore came to his residence on 11-8-1990 at about 12:00

hours and mentioned that his daughter will be made very good player of

tennis through special training and asked him not to send her to Canada

and send her to HLTA office for discussion on 12-8-1990. This statement

has been denied by Mr. Girhotra himself in the reply filed in damages suit

instituted by the accused in the court of Ld. Civil Judge, Chandigarh on 3-

11-2003 which is Ex D-17. He has admitted his signature on written

statement Ex D-17. He further stated that it is correct that accused never

came to his house and never meet him. Totally opposite and contradictory

statement has been made by him before two courts. It shatters his

credibility and render his evidence before this court unreliable and

rejectable. The prosecution has failed to prove that accused called Ruchika

to visit him. As already pointed out, there are fatal contradictions in the

statement of Reemu and Ruchika's father Sh. S.C. Girhotra regarding the

fact and time of leaving the house by Ms. Ruchika on 12-8-1990. The fact

that the accused sent Reemu to call the coach through Paltoo is not proved

because Paltoo and coach have not been examined. Similarly, due to non

examination of Paltoo, it is not established that accused called Ruchika on

14-8-1990. Another circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is that

notice Ex P-4 was the suspension order of Ms. Ruchika signed on 15-8-

1990 i.e. after PW-1, PW-2 etc. went to HLTA office on the evening of 14-8-


45/97

CBI Vs SPS Rathore

45

1990 to meet the accused. This circumstance has been proved to be wrong

and fabricated. The suspension order had been signed and issued on 13-8-

1990. This fact is also evident from the reading of contents of Ex P-2,

besides Ex P-2 has been tempered by Sh. Anand Prakash. There are several

missing links in prosecution case as prosecution has not examined the

coach, manager and Paltoo. These facts adversely effect the case of

prosecution. In support of her arguments, Ld. counsel relied upon the law

laid down in cases bearing citation State of UP Vs Ashok Kumar 1992

CLJ 1104, Ram Dass Vs State of Maharastra 1977 CLJ 955.

40.The next contention of Ld. Defence counsel is that the incident is

absolutely improbable. It has been proved by leading evidence that the

accused is an IPS officer of 1965 batch. By virtue of his integrity and moral

character, he earned promotion from rank to rank and reached to rank of

IG police in the year 1990 and DGP of State of Haryana in the year 1999.

During his service in the State of Haryana he worked as Superintendent of

Police at District Kurukshetra, Rohtak, Sirsa, Ambala and Karnal and was

DIG of Hisar range. He also headed the vigilance organisation of State

Electricity Board and BBMB. During his service he has been awarded five

in service medals including President medal for meritorious service. These

facts have come in the evidence of DW-8. The aforesaid service record of

accused is proof of his good reputation, integrity and high moral character.

PW-6 Sh. R.R. Singh has also admitted in his cross examination that he

had never, prior to 12-8-1990, heard of any complaint of misbehavior of

Mr. Rathore with any lady. PW-10 DSP Anil Kumar has also admitted in

his cross examination that prior to 16-8-1990 he got no information


46/97

CBI Vs SPS Rathore

46

regarding any obscene conduct of the accused with any lady. PW-11 also

deposed that he always heard well about moral character of the accused

and honesty. DW-9 testified that he never heard anything adverse against

t